Infinity Lover

I went with agnostic (though tending towards .

The main reason for that, is that we're talking about what did/didn't happen 2,000 years ago. I'm aware that there's next to no extra-biblical verification, and that there are similarities with pagan myths. The latter however t.m.h.o. doesn't rule out the possibility of those myths being blended into, what otherwise would be a report on a person who really existed, in order to spice up the story. There's just no way of knowing for certain.

Kassiana

I am almost certain that no one resembling the New Testament water walking, dead raising, miracle working Jesus ever existed on this earth.

Having looked at the paucity of historical evidence for A human upon whom the legends of Jesus could be based, I also doubt that there was A human behind them. I tend to believe either (a) that Jesus existed as a concept of the Divine first and then the stories were written or (b) given that the non-interpolated histories of Josephus tell us that huge numbers of Messiah pretenders existed in the time that "Jesus" supposedly did, and that the Jesus Seminar tells us that many of "Jesus'" sayings would have been said by any rabbi worth his salt, I find it more likely that many different Messiahs were combined into one for the NT stories.

Buffman

Jayjay

We have plenty of verification of other regular people being elevated to gods, but is there any verifiable instance of another mythical figure being written about in as much detail and taken that seriously by (almost) contemporaries?

(Seriously, I'd like to know...)

I agree. Many "regular" people have been deified by other "regular" people. I did not live in the times or the lands where other mythical figures were written about and revered in the same kind of detail that you associate with the Gospels. I suspect that a goodly number have been so adulated and worshipped. Perhaps you will find the discussions at the following URLs informative and stimulating.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...us_search.html

http://www.geocities.com/alandwpeters/myths.html

MollyMac

I voted 2. There are so many references to him in in Roman and Jewish writings of the period that I think it most likely that he did exist, that he was a charismatic religious teacher and that he was put to death by crucifixtion. On TV the other night I watched a documentary about the historical evidence in support of the life of his mother, which I also found convincing and I concluded (though the programme didn't state this) that she was the victim of rape by Joseph, to whom she was betrothed. I say 'rape' because the evidence suggests she was betrothed at age of 12 or 13 to Joseph who was a good deal older. She was denied a wedding because she disgraced her family by becoming pregnant. Would a 12 year old willingly sleep with an older man knowing the shame it would bring on them? But instead of having her stoned to death, which was his right on discovering his fiancee pregnant, he stood by her. Why? Most likely because he knew it was his own child she was carrying.

However, all the stuff about him being the Messiah, walking on water etc. is obviously cobblers.

Buffman

MollyMac

There are so many references to him in in Roman and Jewish writings of the period...

So many? Two? Josephus and Tacitus! And there is contradictory argument about the authenticity of parts of the Josephus writing.

Might I recommend that you read the two URLs I listed above and follow all the hyperlinks on the first one.

Defiant Heretic

I voted purely fiction for the same reason that managalar did. (Except I was thinking of the parallels with the mystery religions, not Krishna.) I think it’s possible that he existed as a man, but considering how much of the myth was stolen from other religions, I think it’s quite unlikely.

Wyz_sub10

I would say 'yes', but not in the biblical sense. He was probably the 'Bill Klem' of Christianity - every story told as Christianity developed was probably attibuted to him.

Gooch's dad

I chose #2. I think the man Jesus existed, but has little to do with the figure portrayed in the gospels. Some sayings of the man may be preserved in Q and Mark and maybe even the signs gospel buried in GoJohn, but that's about it.

As someone else pointed out--there aren't any other cases of secular historians referring to a mythical figure as a real historical person, within 100 years of the figure's supposed existence. Yes, the Testimonium Flavianum is probably a forgery, but the Tacitus reference probably isn't. And Tacitus probably knew many Romans who were in Jerusalem before the destruction in 70 CE. It seems extremely unlikely that he would have based his reference to Jesus solely on the stories passed around by Roman Christians.

-Kelly

AbbyNormal

Not wanting to vote 'agnostic' (because it's too much like those phone-in calls where people choose 'I don't know'....seriously, who spends the money on a phone call to voice their opinion with 'I don't know'??? ).....I chose door # 2.
My reasoning is that the story of Jesus has so much of a "legend" feel to it...I can't explain it any better than that. But I think that very often, there is some kernal of reality at the core of every legend....that it started from *something*.
I am reminded of a scene from the movie Braveheart, where the locals quickly begin spreading tales which get a little taller with each retelling. William Wallace is suddenly 7 feet tall and kills hundreds of men. The first time I saw that scene, it occurred to me how easily that could happen with Jesus. I can almost hear the whispers amongst the masses in Jerusalem: "They say he was born of a virgin and can walk on water!".
So, I think there was a person who developed a following and around which a myth and legend quickly grew. I do not think he was the son of god.

Regards,
AbbyNormal

Ab_Normal

On the basis of absolutely no research, I picked #2 - my first step toward atheism was the thought, "Jesus is just a dead guy with real good PR", and I haven't yet collected enough data to abandon that position.